Rand Paul thinks its okay to kill citizens on American soil with drones, From His Lips

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

Likely losing my vote even before he officially runs in for President, Rand Paul has apparently reversed his position and now supports killing
Americans with armed drones. Since when do will shoot people who rob liquor stores?

The most disturbing is I can't figure out if I was hoodwinked by Rand Paul and he was always like this, or if he has now been corrupted.

Will be interesting to see how he responds to the rage from his supporters. (Or those who HAD been supporters!)

it was posted ealier.. but still I support the pauls but I don't know what he is talking about this... why would a police officer or a drone kill
someone for robbing a store for $50... that seems a little harsh.. Lets start with droning the banksters and politicians that walk out of their fancy
office after stealing $50mil-50bil from the american people.. Then we can drone the $50 guys at the liquor store.

Wow just unbelievable, I thought that guy had some credibility, turns out he is the same as others if not worse.

He could at least used an example of a murderer or terrorist, but according to his words robbing a store of some alcohol and $50 now carries a death
penalty? without a trial? As he said "I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman" so really he thinks someone should be killed for just
that?

Rand most definitely isn't his Father. I fully supported and respected Ron Paul while making full use of his campaign's training session for
learning to effectively participate in the Caucus system for Missouri here. That alone was priceless but the rally following it was memorable as well.
No teleprompters or notes needed for him and aside from how unlikely it would have been for others to work with him in Government, I'd have dearly
loved to see him win.

Rand? Well...what I have seen so far isn't a man I'd cross the street to help if he desperately required it and nothing more. Not worth my time.
I'm certainly open to seeing his approach and positions evolve, but it needs to be a logical evolution ... not a flip-flop for a run at higher
office. Time is exceptionally short for that to come in any believable way.

Hopefully this isn't the guy running as the "outsider" in 2016 or it won't be worth making a selection on the top race.

I think we just found out why the feral government has a budget problem. Using a drone to engage a target outside of a package store sounds kind of
pricey. I am assuming the thief maimed or killed the clerk in this scenario. Of course, if the drone used a laser to cap the thief, that would be
cool!

Maybe we could train pigeons to seek a certain color laser and then have the pigeons in a cage hanging off the drone and the pigeon has a
poison/sedative syringe super glued to his/her beak and the pigeon would be released and fly down to the thief and stick him. Using pigeons for guided
weapons, it's been done, no kidding!

Seems to me that Rand's comment here had an implied missing middle statement -- that the robber was branishing a weapon, threatening with the
weapon. Police are not justified in shooting a robber who has already completed the robbery when the robber is not threatening anyone. Neither is a
drone controller justified in doing so. I'm sure Rand gets this. However if the fleeing robber is threatening with a weapon, the circumstances
change. It's no longer about $50 or the robbery; it's about the lives of the police officers and bystanders. I'm fine with police using advanced
technology. The worry for me is that our technology keeps removing us from the blood and guts of violence. Guns did a similar thing three centuries
ago when they became both more accurate and widely available. They made it easier to kill because killing was more removed. Bombs certainly have as
well. Killing by drone removes the act even further. It just seems to be that human judgement is so enmeshed with the visceral response we have to
the experience of violence, that if we remove ourselves even further...I don't know what the "if" is actually. It just makes me a bit queasy. Can
drones even aim at a shoulder or knee? Or is is all top of the cranium? Can drones fire warning shots that are meaningful to a flipped-out, on-the-run
robber? I don't know. I hope that Rand is not suggesting that drones should shoot some idgit who hit up a shop for $50 and has a gun on him. I hope he
means an idgit who is threatening people with that gun. In which case, the $50 heist isn't the drone-worthy crime, it's the imminent threat to
innocent life that is. I hope he just misspoke.

Apr. 23, 2013
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul released the following statement this evening following erroneous reports of a change in his position on the use of
domestic drones.

"My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.

"Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal
situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.

"Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.

"Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston.
As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind."

Some of you who are so quick to jump the gun, with a complete disregard for the context, might benefit from reading this: (from yesterday's)

@ the OP who says that the Senator is "likely losing your vote before he even officially runs (in) for President" … well you may vote for whomever
you so choose, of course – but in reality, lots of luck to you in finding someone with a track record of supporting the Constitution, who
also has the attention of our monolithic media complex.
Which, unfortunately, would be required to, you know, … win.
One of the major take-aways from a year ago, if catch my drift–

Seeing all the statements, I can't help but wonder, did any of you actually watch the video so get some context of that statement? Stupid analogy,
but he is against drones for useless surveillance. He supports the use if it's to curtail an eminent threat. Like a bombing suspect hiding in a
boat. He said they have no business looking into peoples back yards.

I swear, some of you people are so easily swayed with a thread title. Ignorance denied? doubtful.

Rand Paul is not his father and is only slightly different from already exists out there. He lost my credibility when he had issues with reporters and
tried to get them arrested and their press credentials revoked. Abby Martin from RT and another reporter had some big issues with him.

The remark is disturbing but taken out of context. Rand Paul was trying to say, if they man robbed the liquor store, had a gun and was threatening
violence with the gun and had to be shot, it would't matter if a police officer did it or a drone / drone operator did it.

Rand Paul doesn't want assassinations of American citizens taking place on American soil using drones. He never said and is not saying now that
police action that is taking place can't be enhanced by the use of drone technology.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.